cf soldiers Can't afford military rent

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by recce43

Canada maintains a separate system of military justice from that of its civilian justice system...serious in nature.

I’ll have to call you on this one Recce because like yourself and Dave I’m retired from the CF after serving my time in the field of law enforcement with the DND. The Military System of Justice although separate from the Civilian Courts does not have a higher position than Supreme Court, which oversees the civilian population. In fact the Supreme Court can overrule a decision made under military law or under the National Defence Act if found to be in contravention to the Constitution. The Constitution gives the Federal Parliament exclusive power over national defence.

Moreover, the Constitution is recognized as the supreme law in Canada's political and legal system. This is referred to as constitutional supremacy. This means that all other laws and government actions must be in accordance with the basic rules and norms set out in the Constitution. A federal, provincial, or territorial government, for example, can only exercise jurisdiction over policy fields given to it under the Constitution. This in turn has caused the National Defence Act to reform the Military Justice System on more than one occasion.

See: http://publications.gc.ca/Collection.../CIR/961-e.htm


An example of this can also be seen in that homosexuals can now serve in the CAF.

“Military policy dealing with homosexual service members came under increasing judicial and political scrutiny after the passage of the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1 978 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1985. Although the Human Rights Act did not cover sexual orientation explicitly, it did require employers to justify exclusionary or restrictive policies. Nor was sexual orientation included in the enumerated list of prohibited grounds for discrimination in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15 of the charter did, however, allow the restriction of other forms of discrimination if the courts so ruled. A Department of Justice review of federal regulations in 1985 determined that the Canadian Forces were in potential violation of the equal rights provisions of the charter in a number of areas, including discrimination against gays and lesbians. In response to the Department of Justice findings, the Department of National Defence (DND) conducted a survey of 6,580 soldiers, which found that military personnel, particularly men, were strongly against removing the gay ban. Service members expressed concern about all aspects of serving with gays and lesbians: 62 per cent of male soldiers stated that they would refuse to share showers with or undress or sleep in the same room as a gay soldier, and 45 per cent declared that they would refuse to work with gays. Many claimed that they would also refuse to be supervised by a gay or lesbian soldier.5 Based on the surveys findings, the Final Report of the DND Charter Task Force recommended retaining the exclusionary policy toward homosexuals based on the argument that the military's unique purpose necessitated the restriction of gays and lesbians. Given the aversion toward homosexuals in the military, the report concluded that the 'presence of homosexuals in the CF would be detrimental to cohesion and morale, discipline, leadership, recruiting, medical fitness, and the rights to privacy of other members.' It added that 'the effect of the presence of homosexuals would [lead to] a serious decrease in operational effectiveness.'6 In 5 RA Zuliani, 'Canadian forces survey on homosexual issues/ Charter Task Force, Ottawa, Department of National Defence, 1986. 6 See Canadian Forces, Charter Task Froce: Final Report (Ottawa: September 1986); Paul A. Gade, David R. Segal, and Edgar M. Johnson, 'The experience of foreign militaries/in G. Herek, J. Jobe, and R. Carney, eds, Out in Force: Sexual Orientation and the Military(Ch\cago:U niversityo f Chicago Press 1996); and National Defense Research Institute (ndri), Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Policy: Options and Assessment (Santa Monica ca: rand 1993), 74-80. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Winter 2000-200 1 75 Aaron Belkin & Jason McNichol response to the report, the minister of national defence announced in January 1988 that he intended to modify the existing policy only slightly; if servicemen or women were discovered or announced themselves to be gay, they would be asked to leave but they would not be dismissed. Those who chose to stay would not be eligible for training courses, security clearances, transfers, promotions, or re-enlistment.7 According to DND statistics, the military discharged sixty service members for homosexuality between 1986 and 1992 and denied promotions to an additional fifteen because of their sexual orientation.8 The minor DND policies modifications did nothing to halt the mounting pressure to change the policy on homosexuals. As court decisions extended the rights of gays and lesbians under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Act, Michelle Douglas and four other soldiers challenged the policy toward homosexuals in separate suits against the Canadian Forces.9 In preparing its appeal in the Douglas case, DND concluded that it could not meet the standard of proof required to challenge the Charter.10A lthough the chief of the defence staff, General John de Chastelain, privately informed members of parliament (MPs) that the ban was about to be lifted late in 1991 , the federal government delayed in the wake of adamant refusals by some Conservative MPs to support the policy change.11 Finally, facing a case it knew it could not win on legal grounds, DND agreed to settle the case against Michelle Douglas 7 Clyde Fransworth, 'Canada ending anti-gay rules/ New York Times, n October 1991. A3. 8 Alan Hustak, 'Officials fear U.S. furore over gays could affect Canadian troop morale, Vancouver Sun, 8 February 1993, A4. 9 For background on the Douglas case see David Rayside, 'Memo to Harriet Sachs and Clayton Ruby, Re: Douglas vs. H.M. The Queen/ 3 December 1990; Rayside, On the Fringe: Gays and Lesbians in Politics (Ithaca ny: Cornell University Press 1998); Stephen Bindman, "Dismissed lesbian suing military/ Toronto Star, 5 February 1990, A3; Bindman, 'Air Force lesbian wins back her job/ ibid, 16 August 1990, A3; Bindman, 'Lesbian forced to quit loses bid for old job/ Vancouver Sun, 11 May 1992, A3; Bindman, 'Military refuses to reinstate lesbian/ Toronto Star, 11 May 1992, A4; 'Lesbian battles Ottawa over security clearance/ Toronto Star, 26 March 1990, A9; 'Secret war on gays/ ibid, 19 August 1990, B12. 10 See ndri, Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Policy, 77. 11 Tim Harper, 'Tories give up on plans to let gays in military/ Toronto Star, 25 January 1992, A3. 76 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Winter 2000-2001 Homosexual policy in the Canadian Forces in October 1992.12 In doing so, the military acknowledged that its policy of exclusion violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it consented to the immediate repeal of that policy. The policy change in October 1992 concerning gay and lesbian soldiers in the Canadian military was less an affirmative order than a dismantling of existing policy. De Chastelain issued a press report declaring that: 'The Canadian Forces will comply fully with the Federal Courts decision. Canadians, regardless of their sexual orientation, will now be able to serve their country without restriction.1I3n a communique entitled 'Homosexual Conduct/ de Chastelain revoked CFAO19-20 and all related interim policies. The military would henceforth make no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual soldiers. He expressed his 'full support' for the Federal Court s decision and said that he expected the chain of command to support the new policy. He also declared that 'inappropriate sexual conduct by members of the forces, whether heterosexual or homosexual,' was unacceptable.14 Because the courts provided the impetus for change, senior military leaders endorsed the change and encouraged a sense of duty among service members. Senior political and military leaders agreed that
reliance on equal standards for the conduct of gays and heterosexuals
and emphasis on behaviour rather than on the transformation of individual beliefs was the best way to implement the policy. No accommodation exceptions for homosexual or heterosexual troops were allowed once the military leadership decided that gay and heterosexual service members could share living quarters. 15 After the ban was lifted, the Canadian Forces did not institute a separate programme to handle same-sex sexual harassment or personal harassment based on sexual orientation. In 1996, however, DND implemented the Standardsf or Harassment and Racism Prevention (SHARP).”

http://aaronbelkin.org/pdfs/articles...n%20Forces.pdf

As you can see the same courts that the civilians use, and the supremacy of the Constitution have overruled military laws or regulations.

“As in a civilian criminal trial, the accused can challenge the jurisdiction of the court and make use of other motions as well as the full range of applications under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
“Even before the incidents in Somalia involving members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment and the start of the subsequent Commission of Inquiry, questions were being raised about the fairness of the military justice system, especially in view of the constitutional guarantees provided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Supreme Court decisions and legislative amendments between 1985 and 1992 had resulted in significant changes in Canadian military law; however, the recent controversy arising out of the Somalia incidents has led to demands for additional reforms or even the abolition of the military justice system.”

http://publications.gc.ca/Collection.../CIR/961-e.htm

Also See Bill BILL C-25: AN ACT TO AMEND THE NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT

“Another factor has been the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This constitutional change has brought the military justice system – as well as the Canadian legal system generally – under increased scrutiny as regards procedural safeguards for accused persons and principles of fairness and equality of treatment generally. Particular attention has been drawn to aspects of the military justice system that reflect a disparity of treatment between soldiers and civilians or among military personnel, such as the lack of certain traditional criminal law safeguards at summary trials; the fact that only junior ranks (privates and corporals(3)) and non-commissioned officers (master-corporals and sergeants) can be summarily sentenced to detention or reduction in rank; the considerable discretion of commanding officers in deciding to proceed with or dismiss charges, possibly including even very serious criminal charges; and the fact that persons exercising judicial functions (or what would be judicial functions in the civilian system) are often members of the chain of command who have no legal training and who have other apparently conflicting responsibilities for administering the Code of Service Discipline.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliame...&Parl=36&Ses=1

I'm not even certain if the DND is entitled to use the Notwithstanding Clause to negate the Constitution since it is Federal and is expected to uphold the Constitution.

However there are some areas of law in respect to the National Defense Act that are intended to keep military personnel in line with the expectations of duty.

Other interesting changes are in Bill C-45, that may have been put into effect because of the Constitution.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliame...ce=library_prb

[recce43]

However there are some areas of law in respect to the National Defense Act that are intended to keep military personnel in line with the expectations of duty.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

Extremely well thought out and written. Thank you for your service, Sir.

Thanks Ken.

You know I'd do it all again... all of us would.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by recce43

However there are some areas of law in respect to the National Defense Act that are intended to keep military personnel in line with the expectations of duty.

In the interest of National Defense and in the field of operation when dealing with sensitive information that might be concerned with the safety of this Country. However, this young Cpl would have no difficulty in redressing any actions taken against him during Peace time, if they are in violation of his Constitutional Rights, and would likely win. He has the same rights afforded to him under the charter law regardless whether he is in the military.

I'm personally aware of an incident which involved myself, where the Commanding Officer, Base Ops O and my CO acted in an unlawful manner by trying to order me to do an act contrary to my Constitutional Rights. I refused; therefore, I was placed on C&P which I had to redress. The end result was that I won my redress based on that fact that they were infringing on my Constitutional Rights. They were not prepared to go into litigation with Civilian Court as they were legally advised by the JAG. Their actions would have been exposed and the DND would have be held liable for any harm or damage they caused.

The CF has a lot of really good officers and NCOs, but it also has a lot of bad apples in the basket who have made their way up the ranks by burring their nose deep while drinking their way up the ladder. It also has it's psychopaths or should I say Borderlines (ie. Col. Russell Williams Base Commander 8 Wing CFB Trenton Ontario), and a handful of individuals suffering from mental illness (ie. Somalia Affair: Defending the Airborne Regiment); including alcoholics. Moreover, it is a closed community that tries to hide its ongoing problems from the civilian population, rather than being realistic and admitting that it has the same problems as the civilian sector has.

I respect all those who earnestly have joined with the understanding that they might some day be called upon to stand in defense of this Country, and those with the Countries best interest in mind. However, the biggest downfall I observed while serving was the struggle amongst some of its members for positions of authority or power and the quest for higher ranked position as it related to an increase of monies. Pride kept many officers who I interacted with from saying they were wrong. The CF is a great place of employment to learn about discipline and were to experience the ability to push to your limits through various courses and rigorous training. However, one should be careful not to allow themselves to be programmed in a manner to lose their own identity, believing that their leader have some sense of supremacy or equality with God.

When directed to jump a soldier should not say how high, but should use their God given gray matter to question why?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

In the interest of National Defense and in the field of operation when dealing with sensitive information that might be concerned with the safety of this Country. However, this young Cpl would have no difficulty in redressing any actions taken against him during Peace time, if they are in violation of his Constitutional Rights, and would likely win. He has the same rights afforded to him under the charter law regardless whether he is in the military.

Well, unless something has drastically changed since I got out you cannot redress a chargeable offence or the punishment awarded and that info is written right in QR&O's. A recorded warning and C&P are not punishments, they are administrative in nature. I suspect that your infraction was relatively minor in nature since you were never charged for it.

The examples that you provided in your well written and very informative post above compares apples to oranges. Yes, with the Charter of Human Rights a lot of things changed like you mentioned and the chargeable offences listed in QR&O's were amended iaw with it. The offence of Homosexuality was eliminated but I'm pretty sure that charges such as Mutiny, and Conduct Unbecoming of a Service Member, remained on the books.

I am quite certain that as a Meathead (no disrespect intended) during your service you had an excellent understanding of the regs in the Military and I won't dispute that. At my rank when I served I had to have a good understanding as well, however from a somewhat different perspective. If someone committed what I thought was a chargeable offence I had the powers of arrest, either open or closed, and from your MPOR I would decide what to charge the individual with if the OC decided that he wanted to go that route. I would consult with the AJAG Office to ensure that the charge was the correct one to go with and he would ensure that the Charge Report was worded correctly.

There are so many ways to "get" someone if you want to that I am convinced that there is absolutely no way that anyone can beat the system if everyone does their homework. I'm sure that this busking incident is pri 1 for the AJAG right now and he is earnestly working on what charges, if any, should be laid and how to proceed with this. Crying human rights is not going to save this individual at all IMO. I haven't looked to see if QR&O's, CFAO's, CANFORGEN's, etc, are posted online or not but I'm relatively certain that protesting against the Government and the Military are in one of those somewhere.

How are they going to proceed with this? My feeling is that he will be presented with the actions that the Military intends to take against him, including charges and/or administrative action and given the choice between that or an honourable discharge from the CAF.......his choice. I've seen it numerous times and he doesn't have very many options if he takes his release voluntarily. Hey, he chose it. No one is going to sympathize with him nor will they fear what is reported in the media about what happens to him. It'll be completely straight up by the book. If you don't believe that, look what happened to that RCMP member who tried to make a statement awhile back by smoking a joint while in uniform.

[recce43]

Mutiny, and Conduct Unbecoming of a Service Member, they are still on the books . plus many others

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by recce43

Mutiny, and Conduct Unbecoming of a Service Member, they are still on the books . plus many others

Jeeshh now a days they can redress a "fart" or run off to the ombudsman or some other "healer of your feelings" councillor. I tell ya now if we ever got into a good old fashion scrape over in some god forsaken hole there is no red card or I am too tired for patrol. I guess they leaves those wankers back here to beg for money though, thank god or the casualty rate would be through the roof.

[recce43]

ya red card in basic if a recruit pulled that on me i shove it where the sun does not shine...

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Well, unless something has drastically changed since I got out you cannot redress a chargeable offence or the punishment awarded and that info is written right in QR&O's.

Now that I think about it that info may be in CFAO's.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Well, unless something has drastically changed since I got out you cannot redress a chargeable offence or the punishment awarded and that info is written right in QR&O's. A recorded warning and C&P are not punishments, they are administrative in nature. I suspect that your infraction was relatively minor in nature since you were never charged for it.

The examples that you provided in your well written and very informative post above compares apples to oranges. Yes, with the Charter of Human Rights a lot of things changed like you mentioned and the chargeable offences listed in QR&O's were amended iaw with it. The offence of Homosexuality was eliminated but I'm pretty sure that charges such as Mutiny, and Conduct Unbecoming of a Service Member, remained on the books.

I am quite certain that as a Meathead (no disrespect intended) during your service you had an excellent understanding of the regs in the Military and I won't dispute that. At my rank when I served I had to have a good understanding as well, however from a somewhat different perspective. If someone committed what I thought was a chargeable offence I had the powers of arrest, either open or closed, and from your MPOR I would decide what to charge the individual with if the OC decided that he wanted to go that route. I would consult with the AJAG Office to ensure that the charge was the correct one to go with and he would ensure that the Charge Report was worded correctly.

There are so many ways to "get" someone if you want to that I am convinced that there is absolutely no way that anyone can beat the system if everyone does their homework. I'm sure that this busking incident is pri 1 for the AJAG right now and he is earnestly working on what charges, if any, should be laid and how to proceed with this. Crying human rights is not going to save this individual at all IMO. I haven't looked to see if QR&O's, CFAO's, CANFORGEN's, etc, are posted online or not but I'm relatively certain that protesting against the Government and the Military are in one of those somewhere.

How are they going to proceed with this? My feeling is that he will be presented with the actions that the Military intends to take against him, including charges and/or administrative action and given the choice between that or an honourable discharge from the CAF.......his choice. I've seen it numerous times and he doesn't have very many options if he takes his release voluntarily. Hey, he chose it. No one is going to sympathize with him nor will they fear what is reported in the media about what happens to him. It'll be completely straight up by the book. If you don't believe that, look what happened to that RCMP member who tried to make a statement awhile back by smoking a joint while in uniform.

Soldiers may not be able redress a charge but they can appeal any charge if they feel it is unlawful and they feel the punishment is contrary to precedence.

"CF member who: believes they have been aggrieved by any decision, act or omission in the administration of the affairs of the CF" can grieve

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao...2017-1-eng.asp

My younger brother who served 22 yrs. and is happily retired, grieved a similar situation as this young Cpl. He held a second job in the summer of 1998 as a security guard because during that time the pay in the CF was actually very poor. The Edmonton Sun approached him and asked if they could write a story about him. Prior to speaking with the Edmonton Sun my brother advised his unit that he would be talking with the media. They told him that he could not talk to the media because he was in the military and under NDA regulation/law and that it was prohibited; although there is nothing under the NDA that said he could not do this. His response was "yea I will" because he knew that no laws of Canada could override his Constitutional Rights. In the long term of events the CF held a board of inquiry and tried to use the information, from the questions they asked him, to make a finding against him for unsuitable for service. This was contrary to the Privacy Act in that they began collecting information about him which he was ordered to provide. They also neglected to tell him that they were collecting information about him from other sources for purpose of finding a way to have him discharged. The end result of their behaviour was that the CF was found guilty of twelve (12) breeches of the Privacy Act. His file was purged of all information collected unlawfully. The CF is responsible to tell any service member when they are collecting information about them and what purpose that information is going to be used for, in accordance with the Privacy Act.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/re...-e.htm#privacy

Needless to say that my brother remained a Cpl for his 22yrs of service; however I believe his knowledge of his Constitutional Rights and insight into the Privacy Act exceeded any expectation of the authority that his Col. and MWO had in respect to law because they were found guilty of twelve (12)counts of breech of the privacy.

The only thing this young Cpl in Cold Lake could be found guilty of is misuse of DND equipment because he used his military helmet to collect change. However, the CF has the onus to prove that it was indeed their helmet which was issued to him that he used and not his own.

In my case you are correct in that I was not charged; however, I was unlawfully arrested twice, and forced to take a polygraph to prove my innocence in a matter that contributed to the destruction of my then marriage.
The CF tried to hide their actions, and one way of doing that was to purge my file of the C&P and other information that contained incriminating information against their unlawful action that were in violation of my Constitutional Rights. Thanks to the Privacy Act I was able to obtain their reports and investigations to prove my case against them before it was all removed or hidden. My service record remains unblemished with no record of ever being incarcerated, yet it is hard for me to get over that the organization (CF) that I trusted to uphold the Constitution, by virtue of its intended purpose, chose to be in blatant violation of it through the actions of members in authority acting out of ignorance.

The problem with those administering justice in the CF is it often involves NCOs and Officers who have no understanding of the law or justice. They act out of their preconceived ideas of power or authority. Moreover, they abuse such authority and their subordinates often due to pride.

"the considerable discretion of commanding officers in deciding to proceed with or dismiss charges, possibly including even very serious criminal charges; and the fact that persons exercising judicial functions (or what would be judicial functions in the civilian system) are often members of the chain of command who have no legal training and who have other apparently conflicting responsibilities for administering the Code of Service Discipline."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliame...&Parl=36&Ses=1

Every male in my family served in the CF (x3) and each of us at one point in our careers had to fight our superiors in the CF for infringements against our Constitutional right. All three of us succeeded in in winning our grievance in various incidents. Yet in none of those incidents have I heard those in authority apologizing for their unlawful behaviours.

And by the way meathead is acceptable, they had thought about labeling Military Police as boneheads at one time because meat had become too expensive.

[ctd]

I would charge him with this. There are a few others but this one I think would stick.

Taken from Queens Regulations and Orders.

19.42 - CIVIL EMPLOYMENT
(1) Subject to paragraph (3), no officer or non-commissioned member on full-time service shall engage in any civil employment or undertaking that in the opinion of the member's commanding officer:

is or is likely to be detrimental to the interests of the Canadian Forces;
reflects or is likely to reflect discredit upon the Canadian Forces; or
in the case of members of the Regular Force, is continuous.
(2) No officer or non-commissioned member on full-time service shall authorize the use of the member's name or photograph in connection with a commercial product, except so far as the member's name may be part of a firm name.

(3) Except that an officer or non-commissioned member shall not engage in any civil employment or undertaking that reflects or is likely to reflect discredit upon the Canadian Forces, this article does not apply to a member who is :

on leave immediately preceding release; or
on leave without pay.

[58thecat]

The "meatheads" were at one time the individuals that failed at all trades training, combat arms or whatever field they attempted at. They were corralled into either Peri Staff or Military Police based on their intelligence level or inability to walk without their mouths wide open like the intake on an F-18. Lack of oxygen effects them rather in a funny way thus the mouth open at all times "mouthbreathers". This has changed since then for better.
We never ever even attempted to be insubordinate or a beaten was coming, you gave your licks and got your licks but at the end Rank always won and the fear of god was struck upon us every time a Sgt. Major or Regimental Sgt. Major walked in our direction. You would never ditch your regiment or fellow soldiers through hard times and good times you stand united, as one, brothers in arms...times have changed. Ohh yeah did I tell you that we had great pay so we did not have to play musical instruments on the curb for handouts.

[Nester]

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.p...,113573.0.html



meh

[skidderman]

Originally Posted by ehntr

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-commu...s-c-rates.page?

A Cpl is a journeyman. He makes somewhere in between 56k - 72k. There is nothing wrong with that pay scale ......in my mind. Lots of folks do not make that money.........even in Cold Lake. On top of that he qualifies for a monthly allowance of $319 (brings his pay up to a min of $60k) for living in Cold Lake. I do agree that this allowance is not adequate considering that military pers living in Edmonton are receiving more than double that amount.

Finally, what he is doing, busking........and advertising that he is a CAF member and is in need of charity (helmet in hand) is questionable and he may be subject to disciplinary measures.

There was a report on it last night. The guy is up to his neck in debt. The listed pay is minimum & goes up from there. They listed all of the various wages up to and over 100k. If they can't make a living on these numbers they are their own worst enemy. Not unlike a lot of people who just can't get spending under control. He is a freakin cry baby & if you don't belive it then too bad.

[recce43]

he will be released as Administrative burden to the cf
Good bye so long have enjoy civie world get a new job

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by recce43

Mutiny, and Conduct Unbecoming of a Service Member, they are still on the books . plus many others

Mutiny?

Please....

At worst he'll get C&P or perhaps a disloyalty charge along with the 219.
His actions do not fit the bill for mutiny or sedition...

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by skidderman

There was a report on it last night. The guy is up to his neck in debt.

Who reported on that? He's been ordered not to talk to the media and I'm not sure how anyone could determine what his debt is right now without talking to him personally. Perhaps there's a way to obtain someone's personal info that I don't know about.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

Soldiers may not be able redress a charge but they can appeal any charge if they feel it is unlawful and they feel the punishment is contrary to precedence.

"CF member who: believes they have been aggrieved by any decision, act or omission in the administration of the affairs of the CF" can grieve

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao...2017-1-eng.asp

I'll see your admfincs and raise you a QE&O, Vol 1, Chapter 7, Section 1, Article 7.01:

7.01 - RIGHT TO GRIEVE

(1) Subsections 29(1) and (2) of the National Defence Act provide:

"29. (1) An officer or non-commissioned member who has been aggrieved by any decision, act or omission in the administration of the affairs of the Canadian Forces for which no other process for redress is provided under this Act is entitled to submit a grievance.

(2) There is no right to grieve in respect of

a decision of a court martial or the Court Martial Appeal Court;

a decision of a board, commission, court or tribunal established other than under this Act; or

a matter or case prescribed by the Governor in Council in regulations."

(2) There is no right to grieve in respect of a decision made under the Code of Service Discipline.

(3) The right to grieve does not preclude a member from making an oral complaint to the commanding officer prior to submitting a grievance.

Like I said, once he's gone to summary trial and found guilty there's nothing that he can do about it.......against his human rights or not.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

Mutiny?

Please....

At worst he'll get C&P or perhaps a disloyalty charge along with the 219.
His actions do not fit the bill for mutiny or sedition...

recce wasn't suggesting that he'd get charged with mutiny, he was just stating that it was still in the books.

Try to keep up will ya.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by ctd

I would charge him with this. There are a few others but this one I think would stick.

Taken from Queens Regulations and Orders.

19.42 - CIVIL EMPLOYMENT
(1) Subject to paragraph (3), no officer or non-commissioned member on full-time service shall engage in any civil employment or undertaking that in the opinion of the member's commanding officer:

is or is likely to be detrimental to the interests of the Canadian Forces;
reflects or is likely to reflect discredit upon the Canadian Forces; or
in the case of members of the Regular Force, is continuous.
(2) No officer or non-commissioned member on full-time service shall authorize the use of the member's name or photograph in connection with a commercial product, except so far as the member's name may be part of a firm name.

(3) Except that an officer or non-commissioned member shall not engage in any civil employment or undertaking that reflects or is likely to reflect discredit upon the Canadian Forces, this article does not apply to a member who is :

on leave immediately preceding release; or
on leave without pay.

I'm certain it would not stick because you would have to prove it is detrimental the CF, and in this case it is not continuous as he was doing it on his own time on this one occasion. More specific, how is asking money from anyone detrimental to the CF? And he was not selling any commercial products with his photograph on. The media is the only one making profit by using him to attract the interest of the public.

So how is he discrediting the CF, by expressing his concerns about the pay or housing that he is living in? If anything I think he might be discrediting himself in his inability to budget his own finances. If he understands his rights under the Constitution the CF won't be able to touch him because there is sufficient case precedence in his favour.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

I'll see your admfincs and raise you a QE&O, Vol 1, Chapter 7, Section 1, Article 7.01:

7.01 - RIGHT TO GRIEVE

(1) Subsections 29(1) and (2) of the National Defence Act provide:

"29. (1) An officer or non-commissioned member who has been aggrieved by any decision, act or omission in the administration of the affairs of the Canadian Forces for which no other process for redress is provided under this Act is entitled to submit a grievance.

(2) There is no right to grieve in respect of

a decision of a court martial or the Court Martial Appeal Court;

a decision of a board, commission, court or tribunal established other than under this Act; or

a matter or case prescribed by the Governor in Council in regulations."

(2) There is no right to grieve in respect of a decision made under the Code of Service Discipline.

(3) The right to grieve does not preclude a member from making an oral complaint to the commanding officer prior to submitting a grievance.

Like I said, once he's gone to summary trial and found guilty there's nothing that he can do about it.......against his human rights or not.

Your correct; however he then has the right to Appeal not grieve,if anyone was foolish enough take this to a Court Martial. Moreover, the CF would discredit itself by taking this to the level of a Court Martial. And even if he is found guilty by the Court Martial Appeal, he can then take it into Civil Litigation.

"The Supreme Court of Canada, located in Ottawa, is the highest-level court in Canada. It hears appeals from every court of appeal in the provinces and
territories across Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal, and the Court Martial Appeal Court. There is no appeal from a decision made by the Supreme
Court of Canada."

http://www.supremecourtbc.ca/sites/d...on-Process.pdf

So sorry, Yes there is something he can do about it. But do you really think this would go to a Court Martial when the punishment for an offence has to fit the crime, if in fact he has committed an offence?

It feels like I'm struggling with semantics or rhetorics with you.

[ProSK-Antiroyalty]

This french soldier has a family and mouths to feed. I may not completely agree with how he went about it but I give him credit for having the courage to do it. I would rather have him holding a gun next to me defending my freedoms than some unquestioning brainwashed nazi that does whatever the military policy/rules and regulations and fuhrer tells him to do. I am a young guy getting sick of having to work two jobs now for the last three years so one day i can afford a home sounds like these soldiers in cold lake are feeling the same.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

The "meatheads" were at one time the individuals that failed at all trades training, combat arms or whatever field they attempted at. They were corralled into either Peri Staff or Military Police based on their intelligence level or inability to walk without their mouths wide open like the intake on an F-18. Lack of oxygen effects them rather in a funny way thus the mouth open at all times "mouthbreathers". This has changed since then for better.
We never ever even attempted to be insubordinate or a beaten was coming, you gave your licks and got your licks but at the end Rank always won and the fear of god was struck upon us every time a Sgt. Major or Regimental Sgt. Major walked in our direction. You would never ditch your regiment or fellow soldiers through hard times and good times you stand united, as one, brothers in arms...times have changed. Ohh yeah did I tell you that we had great pay so we did not have to play musical instruments on the curb for handouts.

I'm not certain how to reflect upon your comments about meatheads, as it has no bearing or reflection upon me. However, without patting my own back too much I can say that my name was proudly displayed on a plaque just as you entered the Commandants office at CFB Wainwright Battle School because of outstanding performance in a CLC course that I completed with the Pats. Unfortunately, the majority of Combat Arms members who I trained with in that course failed the most important components of that course (Infantry Tactics) and 1/3 did not pass the course. Moreover, the Commanding Officer of the 3PPCLI attempted to have me accelerated two ranks due to my dedication and outstanding performance. Thus, whatever you are referring to in your opening statement about Military Police and PERI staff being those that failed, I find difficult to believe unless it was a very very long time ago?

What year did you serve in? what trade? and what where your accomplishments?

Today it is the high school drop outs and those that have completed only high
school that go into the Infantry 031, because no post secondary education is required to enter, unless this has changed. However to be accepted into the Military Police and some other trades Post Secondary Education is preferred or required.

And by the way, the Commandant I'm referring to at the time during my training at the Combat School was not Former CFB Wainwright commander Major David Yurczyszyn who was charged with offences related to sexual assault, disgraceful conduct and drunkenness in March of 2013.

[recce43]

lol I think he was joking we always made fun of meat heads.. by the way there are tons of people in combat trades with more than a high school education .. but post high school education does not mean you are smarter than anyone else

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by recce43

lol I think he was joking we always made fun of meat heads.. by the way there are tons of people in combat trades with more than a high school education .. but post high school education does not mean you are smarter than anyone else

I don't claim to be smarter than anyone else, and I apologize if this is the way I sounded. I just love to stir the pot a little to see what the stew is made of. And I love to learn. There is a lot of information that is shared here at AO, and very good information to grow from.

Moreover, I can be slightly zealous in respect to a trade I once had much pride and respect for. I also served in the infantry prior to changing trades and there were guys who had university education who were very intelligent, and I saw them go on to become very respectful officers.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

So sorry, Yes there is something he can do about it. But do you really think this would go to a Court Martial when the punishment for an offence has to fit the crime, if in fact he has committed an offence?

It feels like I'm struggling with semantics or rhetorics with you.

Okay, let me try to explain this again. Forget about Court Martials, Human Rights Tribunals and the Supreme Court of Canada for a moment and focus only on this:

Originally Posted by HunterDave

(2) There is no right to grieve in respect of a decision made under the Code of Service Discipline.

For most charges the accused is given the option of a Summary Trial or a Court Martial and he may chose which one to take. For more serious charges the accused has no choice and it goes directly to a Court Martial.

If he is charged under Section 129 of the National Defence Act, "Conduct to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline", he will likely appear at a Summary Trial (aka Orders Parade) and a decision will be made under the Code of Service Conduct. He will either be found innocent or he will be found guilty, in which case a punishment will be handed down. After he has been awarded a punishment, he cannot grieve it.....end of story. That's not rhetoric, semantics or anything else, that is Military law.

So, what exactly is a Section 129 chargeable offence and what is the maximum punishment?

"Prejudicing good order or discipline

129. (1) Any act, conduct, disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline is an offence and every person convicted thereof is liable to dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty’s service or to less punishment."

Don't forget, this is only one option for a charge but the easiest one to convict someone on. If there's an order buried in a memo, canforgen, standing orders or any of the other gazillion of places that you can look that specifically states that you cannot do what he did, he can be charged with Disobeying a Lawful Command and anything else along that lines because, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Will he get charged.....Yup (IMO).
If charged will he be found guilty....Yup.
Can he do anything about it after the punishment is awarded....Nope.
Will he feel like an idiot....I would hope so.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Okay, let me try to explain this again. Forget about Court Martials, Human Rights Tribunals and the Supreme Court of Canada for a moment and focus only on this:



For most charges the accused is given the option of a Summary Trial or a Court Martial and he may chose which one to take. For more serious charges the accused has no choice and it goes directly to a Court Martial.

If he is charged under Section 129 of the National Defence Act, "Conduct to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline", he will likely appear at a Summary Trial (aka Orders Parade) and a decision will be made under the Code of Service Conduct. He will either be found innocent or he will be found guilty, in which case a punishment will be handed down. After he has been awarded a punishment, he cannot grieve it.....end of story. That's not rhetoric, semantics or anything else, that is Military law.

So, what exactly is a Section 129 chargeable offence and what is the maximum punishment?

"Prejudicing good order or discipline

129. (1) Any act, conduct, disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline is an offence and every person convicted thereof is liable to dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty’s service or to less punishment."

Don't forget, this is only one option for a charge but the easiest one to convict someone on. If there's an order buried in a memo, canforgen, standing orders or any of the other gazillion of places that you can look that specifically states that you cannot do what he did, he can be charged with Disobeying a Lawful Command and anything else along that lines because, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Will he get charged.....Yup (IMO).
If charged will he be found guilty....Yup.
Can he do anything about it after the punishment is awarded....Nope.
Will he feel like an idiot....I would hope so.

I agree with you in respect to election by summary trail. However the accused has a chose of what type of trail he will have. He can opt for a trail by Court Martial even for minor offences, which would allow him to have legal representation. In such a case:

"Anyone breaching the Code of Service Discipline can be dealt with through either the summary trial, for minor offences, or the court martial. Part VII (sections 160 to 196) of the National Defence Act indicates the structure and powers of military tribunals as well as rules of evidence, amendments of charges, and other details. The summary trial is presided over by a commanding officer, a delegated officer or a superior commander. The accused cannot be represented by legal counsel, the Military Rules of Evidence do not apply, and there is no right of appeal to a judicial body. The accused can, however, elect to be tried by a court martial."

"The accused can be defended by a military or civilian defence counsel and can raise objections about the composition of the panel or the choice of Judge Advocate. As in a civilian criminal trial, the accused can challenge the jurisdiction of the court and make use of other motions as well as the full range of applications under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are, however, some major differences between a General Court Martial and a civilian jury trial. For example, the panel of officers can reach a verdict with a simple majority vote rather than needing a unanimous decision. Furthermore, unlike a civilian jury trial, where the jury decides the guilt or innocence of an accused but the judge imposes a sentence, it is the panel of officers that imposes sentence, following instructions from the Judge Advocate. Sentences, as provided for by the National Defence Act, can include a reprimand, dismissal from the military, and a reduction in rank, but other punishments can be added."

"Any person tried and found guilty by a court martial can appeal to the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, which has the same function and status as provincial Supreme Courts. The judges are selected from the Federal Court of Canada and other civilian courts of criminal jurisdiction. Following an unsuccessful appeal to the Court Martial Appeal Court, the accused can appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. In certain circumstances, the prosecution can also appeal a court martial decision or sentence to the Court Martial Appeal Court and to the Supreme Court."

http://publications.gc.ca/Collection.../CIR/961-e.htm

If they do try and charge him and he elects to be tried by Court Martial and obtains a good civilian lawyer; he will likely win his case.

But if he choses Summary Trail your assumptions will likely be correct as he will not be afforded justice as I outlined in my previous post, because many officers are not trained or have very little insight into the administration of law and justice.

A very good read on the changes to the National Defence Act because it was in conflict with the Constitution.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Co...nalmay09-e.pdf

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

But if he choses Summary Trail your assumptions will likely be correct as he will not be afforded justice as I outlined in my previous post, because most officers are not trained or have very little insight into the administration of law.

Alright, we got not having the ability to grieve a sentence out of the way.....I think.

Now, I don't know where you got the idea that most Officers are not trained or have very little insight into the administration of Military law, but that simply isn't true, they do. Otherwise, they would not be able to conduct a Summary Trial unqualified. I only ran into it once when our OC was away and a Captain was Acting OC and it had to be determined that he was qualified to conduct a Summary Trial, which he was. I suspect that he was qualified by virtue of certain courses that he had attended in order to become a Major.

Similarly, as an NCO, I was required to train in the investigative procedures, in filling out Charge Reports, conducting a Summary Trial, etc at my level. In fact, it was one of the Performance Objectives on my Senior Leadership Course and covered in detail on my 6B course. It's not something that you learn on your own or through OJT.

All of the information about Summary Trials is in QR&O's and it is very detailed and relatively easy. What is written in QR&O's has been vetted by lawyers in order to ensure that everything is in accordance to Human Rights and everything else that you previously mentioned. What you don't see and hear that happens behind closed doors are CSM's discussing the case with the AJAG Office and relying that information to the Presiding Officer in order to determine if the charge is valid. I have had to reword one or two Charge Reports but I have never been told that the charge was invalid.

I'm fairly certain that there might be a little guidance from the higher echelon to the Presiding Officer as well for cases that are not routine or the punishment could potentially be quite severe. There is a lot of preparation that goes on behind the scenes that you will never know anything about. You seem to be under the impression that the chain of command flies by the seat of their pants when people's livelihood is on the line.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

recce wasn't suggesting that he'd get charged with mutiny, he was just stating that it was still in the books.

Try to keep up will ya.

My bad.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by ProSK-Antiroyalty

This french soldier has a family and mouths to feed. I may not completely agree with how he went about it but I give him credit for having the courage to do it. I would rather have him holding a gun next to me defending my freedoms than some unquestioning brainwashed nazi that does whatever the military policy/rules and regulations and fuhrer tells him to do. I am a young guy getting sick of having to work two jobs now for the last three years so one day i can afford a home sounds like these soldiers in cold lake are feeling the same.

You have crossed a line that only your ignorance will allow us to excuse your immature rant!